This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

This file photo provided by Twentieth Century Fox shows Leonardo DiCaprio as Hugh Glass in a scene from the film, "The Revenant." (Courtesy Twentieth Century Fox / AP)

Mon., Feb. 22, 2016

Hollywood’s gone book crazy if the latest Oscar noms are anything to go by. Six movies in the Best Film, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay categories were originally books. Which prompts us to ask the age-old question: which is better, the movie or the book?

The Martian

(Based on the 2014 book by Andy Weir)

Article Continued Below

Storyline: The page-turning plot transfers largely intact from author Weir’s page to director Ridley Scott’s screen: NASA astronaut/scientist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is mistakenly left for dead on Mars during an emergency evacuation. He’ll have to use every ounce of wit and know-how to survive alone on the red planet while awaiting a rescue that could take years, if it happens at all.

Biggest loss from book to movie: Some of the geek appeal of the book. Andy Weir is great at making arcane science interesting, but movies are about showing, not telling. Yet the film also surprisingly omits a dramatic moment of Watney’s trip to the MAV launcher, when he accidentally flips his rover inside a crater.

Biggest gain from book to movie: The ending. In the book, it seems rushed and even perfunctory. For the film, screenwriter Drew Goddard employs much better pacing and a significant swap of characters makes more sense in the context of the tale. It’s actually quite brilliant.

Which was better? As much as I enjoyed the book, I’d have to say the movie is the better version of the story. Scott is a master at putting sci-fi sagas and worlds onto the screen, having previously done so with Blade Runner, Alien and Prometheus.

The Revenant

(Based in part on the novel The Revenant by Michael Punke)

Storyline: In the winter of 1823, trapping guide Hugh Glass must survive the brutality of the elements and imminent attack by Indians after being mauled by a bear and left for dead by his companions.

Biggest loss from book to movie: Punke’s novel is an understated meditation not just on survival and revenge, but on the natural world and its draw to men such as Glass. Both show Glass fighting desperately to survive, but the novel shows how he did so, while the movie is driven by grand gestures and chase scenes.

Biggest gain from book to movie: No matter how well-written, Punke’s prose can’t give a sense of the scale, the power and the danger of the western wilderness. The movie plunges the viewer into frozen rivers, dense forests and moonlit glades. The cinematography carries an almost physical force only hinted at within the text.

Which was better? The differences between the book and film are so significant as to raise questions about filmmaker Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s motivations. Why a climactic showdown, rather than the ending of the book? Why change Glass’s back story to include a native wife and son? The book is a subtler, stronger piece of storytelling, but there is no denying the primal force of the film.

Room

(Based on the 2012 book by Emma Donoghue)

Storyline: The story remained the same in both the book and the movie, perhaps because the screenplay was also written by Donoghue. Sure, the details were condensed, but the gist of it was this: a woman is being held in a shed by the man who kidnapped her when she was 17 with the boy she gave birth to during that time. They escape and need to readjust to the outside world.

Biggest loss from book to movie: Jack’s internal dialogue. He lived in a world without articles (as in “an” “the” “this”) since, with no outside world, there was only one of each so there was no need to differentiate them. So much of his internal dialogue was charming.

Biggest gain from book to movie: A heightened sense of the ordinariness of it all. In the book, the words transform the dire circumstances by allowing our imaginations to fill in the blanks. In the movie, the prosaic dullness and ordinariness of their background was so much more vivid. And as a Torontonian? Another big gain was seeing our city. Apache Burger anyone?

Which was better? The book asks more from us as all books do: to use our imaginations and interpret what we read through our own experience. But the movie was fantastic and evoked all of the emotions I experienced while reading the book: fear, disgust, incredulity. So I’d say it’s a bit of tie.

Carol

(Based on the 1952 novel The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith)

Storyline: Both book and film tell a tale of forbidden love plucked from Highsmith’s own life. In the novel, Therese, 19, is an aspiring stage designer; in the movie, she wants to be a photographer. This plot difference allows her to take candid photos of Carol, an affluent housewife living a double life, that show a depth of feeling dialogue cannot express. Much of the movie centres on a desperate road trip said to have inspired Nabokov’s similar scenario in Lolita.

Biggest loss from book to movie: In The Price of Salt, Therese vibrates with introspective honesty. But there is never a point in the film where she is able to give voice to her true spirit and that’s a shame. Without the book first, it might be impossible for the profound love these women share to be believable enough.

Biggest gain from book to movie: Here, a world is presented that is dreamlike and otherworldly because it is seen through the eyes of two people falling headlong into one another. To watch this film is to allow yourself to be mesmerized by a flawless depiction of a love affair dashing itself against the rocks of life.

Which was better? Anyone who sees Carol should also be required to read The Price of Salt, to fully absorb the impact and significance of the story as well as the depth of what these people feel for one another. It’s a love that defies convention but also one that is just like anyone else’s.

The Big Short

(Based on the 2010 book by Michael Lewis)

Storyline: The book and the film focus on the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent financial crisis of 2007-2008. Both draw their power from the individuals who realized that greedy Wall Street bankers had created financial instruments they didn’t understand.

Biggest loss from book to movie: Complexity. The book, over its 320 pages, provides chapter and verse of the malfeasance, cunning and ignorance that prompted the economic collapse. It is masterfully executed. (That said, the book is aimed at a select readership of men and women who understand the financial-services industry.)

Biggest gain from book to movie: Fun. A few examples: Chef Anthony Bourdain in a cameo comparing the stench of bad bond deals to three-day-old fish soup; Ryan Gosling sauntering through the fourth wall to tell us what’s really going on; and riveting performances by Christian Bale, Steve Carell and Brad Pitt. It transforms what could be horrifically dull into an unforgettable cinematic experience. Bonus: we come away thinking we understand what happened.

Which was better? It’s always tempting to come down on the side of the book, but a topic of such supreme denseness (we’re talking subprime mortgages, collateralized debt obligations and credit-default swaps) needs all the help it can get. So the movie entertains and enlightens more than the book ever could.

Brooklyn

(Based on the 2009 novel by Colm Toibin)

Storyline: Brooklyn follows Eilis Lacey, in her early 20s, from her Irish village to a new life in America in the 1950s, where she works at a department store and studies bookkeeping by night. She meets and falls in love with Tony, a young Italian man. When tragedy strikes, she returns to Ireland, where she must decide her future for herself.

Biggest loss from book to movie: The novel includes additional time with Eilis’s family. This gives greater depth to Eilis’s character and lends force to the early scenes of dislocation and loss. By subtly shifting the focus of the story toward the romantic, the loss doesn’t feel as acute as it could.

Biggest gain from book to movie: The spare (but stunning) quality of Toibin’s prose leaves a lot to the reader’s — and filmmaker John Crowley’s — imagination. The film is sumptuous and richly involving, playing with palettes and tones beyond the scope of prose on the page. Nicky Hornby’s work with Toibin’s dialogue brings the story to life, imbuing a humour and comedic timing missing from the novel.

Which was better? Brooklyn is one of those rare cases in which the novel and film complement each other rather than compete. The film brings a vibrant life to the story, while the novel allows for greater immersion and intensity. Each satisfies on its own, but they’re best taken together.

Peter Howell

Robert Wiersema

Deborah Dundas

Marissa Stapley

Sarah Murdoch

Robert Wiersema

Delivered dailyThe Morning Headlines Newsletter

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com